Book Review of Superhubs: How the Financial Elite and Their Networks Rule Our World by Sandra Navidi
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- This book convinced me that network power beats out financial power in our system. The video is a book review of Sandra Navidi’s book Superhubs, with commentary on the broader meaning of the book. I connect some of her ideas to a podcast that discussed elite networks in China. Here is a link to that podcast: • Confessions of a Chine...
If you plan to buy the book on Amazon, use this link to support the channel:
amzn.to/3OnFPKz
Image credits:
pixabay.com/ph...
Image by bridgesward from Pixabay
pixabay.com/ph...
Image by Katrina_S from Pixabay
pixabay.com/il...
Image by No-longer-here from Pixabay
pixabay.com/ve...
Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay
pixabay.com/ph...
Image by freestocks-photos from Pixabay
pixabay.com/ph...
Image by user1505195587 from Pixabay
pixabay.com/ph...
Image by Lisa Larsen from Pixabay
pixabay.com/ve...
Image by Shafin Al Asad Protic from Pixabay
pixabay.com/il...
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
pixabay.com/ph...
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
The paradox of this channel is it's the most personable person on RUclips - consistently talking about power, social dominance and power structures. And it works 🔥
This channel is a gold mine waiting to be discovered by the masses
Have you actually listened and thought about what’s being said. I have suspicions that Ashley is a Keynesian.
@@tomrusack3266 Based. One of the few economic paradigms that has ever worked largely as intended.
The masses only discovered the wheel when it rolled over them.
I perceive your intense effort to gain clarity about what you are studying.
The road to understanding in that way can be a long one, but I think it is the honest path.
There is so much to understand in this world, and each of us has limited time.
I notice from another video that you have been reading J. K. Galbraith.
He is one who tried hard to think clearly and honestly.
Your review of this book was 10x better than the book.
Girrrllll you are IT hunniii! 🔥🔥🔥
What i learnt from this, "social intelligence", means, "skill at lying", you have to be a natural empath to be that effective at being evil, plus training in con artistry
Thoughtful video, appreciated
Second video of yours that I'm watching, the first was on Peter Turchin. Love it! Ty 👍
First: These videos are very helpful. Thanks.
But Second:
"This book convinced me that network power beats out financial power in our system."
I think the degree of advantage in each area is what matters.
If Person A has 7 friends and a net worth of $10,000,
and Person B has 6 friends (at the same level of society as A's friends) and a net worth of $10 mil,
then I would consider B more powerful than A.
IMO:
Economic power cannot be reduced to a single dimension like "net worth" or "connections".
It is a complicated, non-linear function of all of these.
I was going to say something along the same lines. I think it's almost a chicken and egg scenario, or as you said it, more complicated. It's not as simple as "this type of power beats this other type of power".
To add to your example, I would also mention the requirement to buy into these networks. It's one thing to talk about the network connections at Davos and who gets to talk to who depending on what network connections they already have... but first they have to buy a ticket to Davos 💰💰💰
In your scenario, A is not attending Davos. A has a network of friends, and that network of friends could include some wealthy individuals who have been friends with A for their entire life... but those network connections won't have anywhere near the power that B's connections would have, just by virtue of the events that B can afford to attend. A could have a far stronger connection with their wealthy friend, but that connection is social and does not necessarily translate into political or economic power. B on the other hand, can have a weak connection to a very powerful individual they met at Davos, and suddenly they have far more power than A could ever have.
To connect it in real world dynamics, who do you think has more power and influence based on their connection to Jeff Bezos? His highschool friends? Or the business leaders that he meets at Davos? I would argue that the business leaders are more powerful, despite the fact that their connection with Bezos is not as strong as the connection he has with his friends.
I think you must offer something of value to a network before you get useful one. Networks are also protective of power and sharing intelligence. Replicating the elites power structure isn't relevant to the average person. @@TheCommonS3Nse
This channel's great - I've been bingewatching while packing for my summer vacation! :)
Can we acknowledge just how cute she is?
💯💯👏👏
Look up the paper on hypereflexivity comparing sincerity and prudence
The big concern is when everyone is drawn to a great attractor that will eventually cause collapse if that's our only goal. I'm specifically referring to super-linear power law idolatry in VC.
Very interesting. Thanks. I have a few comments about some of the videos, where is the best place to have a discussion about this?
Had this on my buy list for a while. Have you got a top 10 or 20 book list video?
I have a couple of videos from a year and a half ago on book lists of particular types:
Nonfiction Book Recommendations That Will Improve Your Thinking: ruclips.net/video/0Bmsi1GgD2Q/видео.html
Nonfiction Book Recommendations to Think About the Future / The Economics of Digital Industries: ruclips.net/video/6N9Bumx4h8g/видео.html
thanks@@thenewenlightenmentwithash8465
It's called compounding interest and financiers have already understood this. Elites are often older and uneducated about who they are, and so they seek to recreate glory in their image. The underclass have always known how power works because we're at the bottom of the power being wielded.
If a poor person says, "your system hurts me", the rich person says, "you aren't worth considering". If, after decades of rule, the truth becomes clear and there is another elite who does a very clear economic analysis that proves exactly what the poor person says, then the elites may consider changing their mind. That's a big if too, because there's a clear interest in maintaining wealth and power.
I've thought about this before: can you make a good argument to make powerful people yield? Sometimes, but often times the argumentation is a treadmill and you're just wasting energy as part of their game. A lot of rich old elites have extremely outdated beliefs, and many have supported fascist movements.
People have already analyzed elites of wealth and power, for centuries. But no one takes it seriously when it comes from a poor person, even though we know that the point is to make you needy, because if you weren't needy you wouldn't bow to their interest.
Your target audience is probably children of upper middle class, who have been brainwashed by bigger fish. Marxism is a poor person's ideology, with over a century of shared trauma from elites. You can't sell this to the progeny of petty elites, so their time and energy is spent rediscovering exactly what poor people know - they work for those with power, to further entrench their power, and that is fundemntally abusive.
The elites are so snobbish, they have to recreate Marxism through their own lense and take all the credit for it. It doesn't really matter in the end. It is, as it is.
Very good point. I have NEVER had someone extol the virtues of Marxism to me who did so in a working class accent :)
Marxism is just victim loser ideology. It's not about figuring out how to expand wealth and resources. These will take considerable research, work, and risk. commies are just lazy vengeful sacks of garbage. @@GreenMorningDragonProductions
I think networking is very overrated. As an entrepreneur I wasted years networking and it’s clearly not worth it. Most of my entrepreneur friends came to that conclusion. Most people are shallow and the "networking people socially intelligent" are exceptionally shallow (and low IQ). If you have any value, people of value will come to you.
What networking is worth at elite levels is very valuable . What networking is worth at your entrepreneur level of business is pointless.
@@PlanetEarth3141 If the principle is true then it should be worth it at any level. It's obvious to me that the cost of networking is way higher at "elite levels" which offset the value you get. To be fair it can be worth it if you truly enjoy. It feels like dying inside to me.
@@superresistant0 You are a decent and good debater. It's been an honor to trade the mandatory opposite opinions with you.
@@superresistant0 What are the levels you're referring to? I think you have an assumption about this that isn't valid.
my friend this is a really good vide0; it reminded me of fhe networking book by samuel delaney: TIMES SQ RED TIMES SQ BLUE ❤
I thought was reasonably intelligent, until I started listening to your channel. This channel (you) openned up a whole new perspective. And your delivery is so engaging. You magnify the impact of your words with your gesticulations and facial expressions in an way to brings out the importance of those certain words and phases. In other words, you are one of the best speakers I have ever listened to. So I have to ask, do you have any training in the theater, or do those subtle changes in voice inflection, head tilts, and various glances, which accentuate the meaning of the words you are speaking, all come naturally?
Hol' up! At 2:44 you mention that Navidi is "an economist in her own right" and show same on the left-hand side of the screen: "Author is a networked-in economist". That's not the case, at least as far as the internet (and Wikipedia) is concerned: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Navidi She's a lawyer and worked with an economist (Nouriel Roubini).
Yeah. She calls herself an economist at some point. I wasn't sure if I should honor her self description or stick with the "classic" definition (Ph.D in Economics) and I chose the former. I think she had a role in a company at some point with the job title "Economist", and this definitely happens sometimes (non-Ph.D's getting the "economist" title). But I agree that the language is a little tricky.
The last half of that was some major word salad
Totally Stealing: "A More Networky Way to Think About The Economy."
Promo'SM
i found you
So connected people will run things and practical people will be marginalized. Not good.
You discredit yourself and show sloppy work when you call the Communist Party of China (CPC) the ccp which does not exist it's insulting. Makes me wonder what if anything you really know about China.
Its not that deep and the CCP is also a well common abbreviation although its not the official CPC one.
@@Alain_Jobs Many things are taught incorrectly and are insulting to other civilizations of course the empire can do as it pleases and you apparently just go along with the insult justifying your error with "everyone does it". Clearly you have little regard for accuracy and prefer using insults rather than accuracy. How about UAS united American states. No problem for you right?
Insulting? I think China is the least insulted by westerners saying CCP. Granted the term has been use pejoratively by some entities and words and accuracy do matter. But to say she discredit herself or sloppy work is so weak. Youre burrying all the message and her own person to unofficial use of an abbreviation... You seem to assume she is not versed on China because of it which is also a bad assumption. I think you should recheck yourself when you try to make it seem like were wrong and were the problem and you're right and everyone should be like you. & I'm not even american. I didn't use insults. Language is a powerful tool, but it isn't dogmatic but you seem to be...
@@Alain_Jobs Deliberately calling someone or some institution by an incorrect name is incorrect. It is wrong to use CCP it is incorrect and many Chinese agree with me. It is arrogant and condescending imperial speak. Interesting how strongly this deliberate insult is defended. And yes there is free speech so you can continue to lie about what is correct as much as you like.
@@babyl-on9761 Instead of saying what you said in your original comment, why didn't you said what you just said in your last reply? Instead of putting someone down, why didn't you try to educate people, you're the one who had the disappointed condescending tone ("you should know better" tone). And saying theres free speech so I can say lies thats also disingenous from your part as free speech is better when it's used for common understanding for agreement/disagreement. My original reply was too calm to go against your initial harsh critic with little context and assumption. Interesting how you''re so focused about your own perspective in a channel that tries to give more clarity to the very nuance world we're living. Have a great day.
I very much enjoyed your video. I definitely need a bigger and better network. Why can't we friends?